Suckas take heed

Coming soon to a country near you: freedom of speech does not apply to Christians with strong views.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Let's get it on! Our new blog is up at worldmagblog.com. Click here to go straight there.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Hey, all you, Clarke-loving, Bush-hating, Condi-bashing, liberal group-thinkers: Shove this in your pipe and take a long drag...
I think this is a good move. To every extent possible, Bush should make it impossible to criticize him on avoidable issues.
Eventually these people will learn that if you challenge Bush to a fight, you're going to get a coupla six-shooters in your face.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

This column made me laugh. You will laugh too--unless it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Whatever you do, do not click on this link! No! Stop! You will regret it! You will never be able to stop playing!

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Now, for words that make me really angry when mispronounced or misappropriated:
(1) "nuclear" (it's nuclear, people, not nucular--what the heck is nucular, anyway? Someone please tell George W. that it is pronounced nuke-lee-ar).
(2) "height" (it is "height" not "heighth").
(3) "inherent/inerrant" (these are not the same)

That is all for the moment. Please declare your own personal pet peeves on the "Bring it!" comment page located directly above this post.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Eric Burns is the man.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

This makes me hope I never have to get a blood transfusion. The question is not homophobic; it is AIDS-phobic. It simply ignores reality to say that gay men do not have the highest risk of contracting HIV and AIDS. Therefore (ah, how hard it is for some people to draw conclusions), it makes (somewhat) common sense to ask this question. I say "somewhat" because sense doesn't seem to be very common anymore. And does Shauna Bates seriously think the Red Cross are hatin'?
This nonsense about less blood in the blood supply: fine, we don't want your blood, you Western Oregon, politically correct fools! (Actually, I thought the whole "controversy" was about less blood in the blood supply.) Maybe this will motivate non-risk factor people to give more blood.
I can't give blood because I've gotten a tattoo in the last year. You don't hear tattoo artists whining about discrimination. Why are homosexuals the only group (and atheists like Michael Newdow, I guess) that has the right to whine about anything and everything that impinges on their so-called "rights"?
One word: ridiculous.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

This would be funny...well, no, I take that back.
Yeah, I know, we're all supposed to say, "Well, Ken, when you put it that way..." Except that would be stupid. This is not a case of not being able to see the other side of the issue; this is a case of seeing the other side, and recognizing (being discriminating, if you wish) the inherent destructiveness. See, evangelicals are not the primary carriers of any disease (except being on the wrong side of the Political Correctness Spectrum [PCS], and, of course, being from the South and the Midwest). Reading this article, it is easy to see how this issue simply does not work the other way round. Correlation CAN be found between not having a mom and a dad and social and psychological problems; correlation CAN NOT be found between being an evangelical and those same problems. This is not made up, Ken.
I realize that telling someone that what they are doing is wrong and destructive does not make them feel good; IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO. The Law never "feels good." But what feels good is what we like, and we base everything on our feelings. We used to know that feelings are subjective, and that we can manipulate our feelings based on our thinking. Whoever said follow your heart was an idiot. You don't "follow" your heart, unless you want to end up in a ditch somewhere. It's called the blind leading the blind.
To state it even more strongly, I would bet all the money in the bank that every problem in this nation can be traced to "following your feelings/heart." Why are there teenage pregnancies? Because some young dummies followed their hearts. Why are there so many adulterous affairs? Because adults are not immune to following their hearts. Why are millions of babies killed each year? Because mothers follow their hearts to the local Planned Parenthood. This is where "following your heart" gets you. So please, Ken, do not follow your heart (and that goes for evangelicals, too).

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Stop threatening, and just do it!
In the article, Mark Tooley says it will not change the church's stance on marriage and sexuality. Too late, Mark; something does not need to be changed "officially" for it to be changed. The stance has already been changed, and you've missed the boat. The fact that church "juries" refuse to recognize crystal clear language in their own Book of Discipline proves that they do not care. Of course, when nothing is authoritative (Bible, Book of Discipline, it's all just guidelines anyway), why should anyone expect differently?

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

The Mark of the Beast: School District Funding?
That's only slightly tongue-in-cheek. Because the Westminster School District in Orange County, California (or three of the members of the Board of Trustees) declined to vote in favor of changes to the non-discrimination policy, they may no longer receive state funding, and may have lost a loan. This is being played off like it is a matter of getting funding for some schools, but it is much bigger than that. Hey, what's the big deal? Say transsexuals shouldn't be discriminated against and define "gender" as however a person "perceives" his or her sexuality, and everything's good. Nonsense. This is about right and wrong, and "perceived" doesn't quite fit in there. I applaud the three trustees who are sticking to their guns, and I hope they keep firing away until they win. We cannot give in because it's just a "small issue." A lot of little issues make one big issue: the intolerance in this country toward traditional Christian belief.
Because those three trustees have "put children at risk" (I'll tell you right now, I don't want my children put at risk by being exposed to transsexuals!), they are being "targeted" for recall by the local PTA. (Maybe the president of the PTA, Louis MacIntyre, has a little transsexual at home.) The trustees need to resist this at all costs, even if they are recalled or lose. They will know, at least, that they stood up for what is right, regardless of the personal attacks waged on them. Stand firm!

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

One of the absolute best articles written on The Passion of the Christ by Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Oooh, how clever!

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

"This is mammal harassment, and I don't have to take it!"

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Lesson #1: Do not take on a sledgehammer-wielding man if you only have a paintball gun.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

How's this for flattery? The New York Times now advertises (if you don't see it on the right side, just hit "refresh" a few times) on Foxnews.com! Beautiful!

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

I find it just a little ironic that the ads at the top of my page (which make this blog free) have links to "John Kerry for President" sites! Be careful what you post about, I guess...

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Yeah, it's hate mail, but it was probably fabricated by the vast, right-wing conspiracy.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Uh, I forgot, which is the peaceful religion?

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Imagine if some pro-murder-of-unborn-women group asked to put up a poster in their college quad likening those (like George W. Bush) who oppose abortion to Hitler? I bet you that the administration would allow it and then deal with any protests by pro-life groups. But, of course, it's different when a pro-life group wants to put up its posters. Freedom of speech is alive and well on college campuses!

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

I casually surfed over to NARAL's site, and found a picture of a poster to promote their march on April 25 in Washington, D.C. (Here, see top picture, yellow with feet marching up some stairs.) I especially liked the part where the poster says, "march for decisions your mother made." It is more than slightly ironic that if their mothers had really made the decisions, they wouldn't be able to march. Think about that one for a minute...

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

I realize that I have not commented on this issue of Melissa Ann Rowland's alleged refusal of a C-section that would have saved one of her unborn children, but perhaps that is because I see it is as just another case where polarization happens between the usual suspects. Pro-life groups see it as an outrage, and pro-death--sorry, pro-"choice"--groups see it as an attack on the "rights" of the mother. However, in allowing such a case to go by, uncommented upon, I risk hardening myself so that I am no longer outraged by such attempts to preserve the unlimited murder license granted to women alone. (Why can't I have the right to kill those who interfere with my convenience and the fulfillment of my potential? Hmm, I guess it might have something to do with taking responsibility for my actions and my choices.)
In this story, Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (a group that apparently lobbies on behalf of pregnant women who use drugs!), says this: "Part of this assault on motherhood is to portray certain women as selfish people without regard for their babies." Think about this statement for half a second, and, if you consider yourself a thinking person, you should be able to see the inherent stupidity and illogicality. "This assault on motherhood"? Who is assaulting motherhood here? The woman who protects her child or the woman who kills it? (Or the woman who uses drugs while she is pregnant?) The way I see it, it's pretty darn hard to protect motherhood if the woman kills the thing that makes her a mother. I hate to have to point out the obvious facts, but apparently someone's got to do it.
Or how about the second part of the statement: "to portray certain women [like those who kill their children?] as selfish people without regard for their babies." Now where would we get an idea like that? Maybe from the fact that THEY KILL THEM?
Kent Morgan, a spokesman for District Attorney David Yocom, according to the article, says, understandably, "I don't know of anybody who rationally believes that a baby who has come to term is something a mother can destroy." Now, the "rationally" part is arguable, but if he thinks that people don't advocate destroying full-term babies, he hasn't talked to anyone from NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and, apparently, the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (I don't want them "advocating" for my pregnant wife, since it is apparently at the expense of the "pregnant" part of her). We just need to accept the fact that these groups do not think rationally, they simply react to any perceived "threat" on "reproductive rights." Which is a misnomer if I've ever seen one: since when are these people concerned about the "right" to reproduce? That's just silly. They are actually concerned about the right not to reproduce! They should call themselves advocates for non-reproductive rights. At least they'd be accurate.
Forget rationality when "discussing" with these people. You will never win any such arguments. Our best course of action is simply to ignore and marginalize them, and work for legislation that protects the rights of every women--including unborn ones.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

I think people across denominational lines should support the faithful remnants in those denominations that have been infiltrated by teachers of antinomian and anti-Christian doctrines (e.g. support for "loving, faithful, monogamous" homosexual relationships, abortion rights, etc.). Putting my money where my mouth is, check out this website for Solid Rock Lutherans, an ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) group that is attempting to stem the tide of apostasy toward acceptance of homosexual behavior in their denomination. Support them if you are able, with prayer if not with financial help (even if it appears to be a losing battle).

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Another reason to pray that John Kerry does not become president. Whether Kerry directed his staffer to take such an action, he certainly has such extremists working for him. What a perfect example of the freedom of speech and of choice that the Democrats extol so highly! Don't you wish you could be as tolerant as these Democrats?
Can't you imagine now what would happen if Kerry took the highest office in the land? He would sic his speech Gestapo on any protestors in the crowd. As Dean Abbott points out, what if the sign had been on the other side of the political spectrum and a Bush staffer had done the same thing? The NARAL crowd would be "outraged" and the ACLU would be contemplating legal action. The hypocrisy astounds. File this story in case something like that does happen. (Of course, we're talking about Republicans, not Democrats, so you might have to file it for a long time.)

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Last night I spent two hours (two hours of my life that I can never get back, mind you) at the most ridiculous display of self-congratulation that I have ever personally witnessed. With another fellow student and a Roman Catholic seminarian, I went to a cross-town seminary to hear a Jewish rabbi and a professor (and member of the Jesus Seminar, if that gives any indication of the atmosphere) give their impressions of The Passion of the Christ. Now I'm all for hearing different perspectives on controverted issues, but not in the kind of environment that was created at the "dialogue" last night. The two presenters basically gave their opinions about how anti-Semitic and "pornographically violent" Mel Gibson's movie is. They said they do not know how anyone could view the movie and not see the inherent anti-Semitism. For example (theirs, not mine), the "little Jewish children" who harass Judas: the one Jewish child bites Judas' hand and draws blood; with blood running down his face, he "morphs into a demon" [drawing much laughter from the audience]. Now [with indignation], what does that say about Jews? Remember how Christians used to think that Jews were bloodthirsty and they sacrificed little Christian babies. Or, take this, everyone in the film is "absolved" except, you guessed it, the Jews. I mean, it's clear that Jesus absolves Pilate of any guilt, but the Jews, Jesus says, are guilty of the greater sin, because they handed Him over. Think for a minute about the illogicality of that statement. For starters, Jesus never says, as the "scholars" stated last night, that Pilate has no guilt. But more importantly, when Jesus says that the Jewish leaders bear the greater guilt, does that not necessarily imply that someone has great guilt? How can one have greater guilt, if no one has great guilt in the first place? This is what passes for scholarship and reasoned discourse!
They said that they did not want to take away from those who experienced a deepening of faith as a result of the movie, and yet it was constantly implied that if you did not see the anti-Semitism, you were obviously insensitive, intolerant and you want to see all Jews punished because they are "Christ-killers." This they proved with a large number (read: "three") of anecdotal instances where people have called Jews "Christ-killers" recently. Amazingly, they were all children or teenagers. Doesn't that say anything? Yeah, that Christians are being stirred to anti-Jewish sentiment! No, it says that children are not being educated by their parents. If a kid calls another kid "queer," is that a result of Jerry Falwell or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?
What is really going on here? In my opinion, they are the ones who are fostering intolerance. When you have a bunch of people getting together to hear, as one of the presenters said, "preaching to the choir (at least we hope we're preaching to the choir," and, in general, saying how good and sensitive and tolerant of other religions we are, you've got something, but it certainly is not dialogue. The condescension and patronizing tones of those who spoke was enough to make me intolerant--not of Jews but of liberal "Christians." As a result of their back-patting and yes-men rhetoric, they are creating intolerance of anyone who doesn't agree with them. When you have people saying that those who don't see the anti-Semitism and "theological problems" and, yes, even "homophobia" (Herod is outed!) need to be educated, you've got intolerance, plain and simple. That was the atmosphere, and I'm sure that my Roman Catholic friend would have exploded, were he not so tolerant of those with whom he disagrees.
Even more, I believe that their discussion is what could foster anti-Semitism. They find anti-Semitism saturating every scene in the movie, where normal people with no anti-Gibson agenda would never see it. They conclude that this will foster anti-Jewish rhetoric and violence, and yet, they are pointing out every place where Mel Gibson "included" his latent anti-Semitism. Talk about handing out ammunition! And, if it is only those who are already anti-Semitic who will be incited by this film, who are they trying to convince? If one does not see anti-Semitic sentiment, they will not be incited to violence. If one is already anti-Semitic, how is this "dialogue" going to stop or convince those people otherwise? It is not.
Finally, the most hateful part of the presentation is where the presenters impugned Mel Gibson's motivations for making the movie. The Jesus Seminar professor, naturally, said that he did not believe that Mel Gibson didn't intend to make an anti-Semitic movie. It is clear, he insinuated, that Mel Gibson grew up in a home with anti-Semitism (guilt by association, of course), so "he absolutely knew what he was doing when he made this movie." Gibson says he didn't intend to inspire such anti-Jewish sentiments, but "he is winking at his people in the audience, saying, 'You guys know how it really happened.'" I only wish that I could exhibit such a purely Christian spirit towards those I disagree with.
Tolerance? Hardly. Dialogue? You can't have dialogue with a bunch of sycophants. There is much more I could disagree with, but you're tired of reading and I'm tired of writing rage-inducing arguments.
If you care, the seminary was Eden, the professor was Steve Patterson, and the rabbi was Rabbi Mark Shook.
I have a feeling that my Roman Catholic friend will have his own impressions up here very soon.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Does anyone want a guy for a president who says of a sitting president and his administration: "these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen." He pretended he wasn't really talking about the administration, but about some unnamed group of "attack dogs" within the Republican party. Unfortunately, because he didn't know that his microphone was on when he said it, it is very difficult to believe his statement when it is said on the defensive. But on a more general note, is it possible for the Democratic presidential hopefuls, and outspoken Democrats in general, to say anything at all positive about anyone who is not exactly like them? Can Americans be convinced that Kerry is the right man when he never says anything original, but only criticizes the president? What happens if he gets elected? You can't go on criticizing the other side if you are in charge. It makes you look, well, kind of stupid. But, then, that wouldn't be too different from the present state of things. Thinking people can only hang with that garbage so long, and then they get tired of never hearing anything but negative rhetoric. The question is, does Kerry have anything positive to say, either about other people or his own platform?

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Two nice columns today: Ann Coulter on William Safire's ridiculousness (which I commented on a week or so ago) and Suzanne Fields on why some homosexuals are upset by the homosexual "marriage" movement.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Heard on Fox News' "Fox News Live": 70% of convicted felons, if they could vote, would vote for Democrats. I guess you can draw your own conclusions.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Finally, some common sense prevails. The following is from the Nota Bene mailing list:

"Nota Bene Special Announcement

FOR RELEASE MARCH 9, 2004
Discovery Institute
(206)292-0401

OHIO ADOPTS "CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EVOLUTION" CURRICULUM

COLUMBUS, OH, MARCH 9 – Discovery Institute called it a victory
for students, academic freedom, and common sense when the Ohio
state board of education today voted 13-5 to adopt a model lesson
plan on the "Critical Analysis of Evolution."

"The board's decision is a significant victory for students and
their academic freedom to study all sides of current scientific
debates over evolutionary theory," said Bruce Chapman, president
of Discovery Institute. "It's also a victory for common sense
against the scientific dogmatism of those who think evolution
should be protected from any critical examination."

Chapman added that the lesson plan is exactly the approach to
teaching evolution that Discovery Institute has advocated all
along, helping students learn both the scientific strengths and
weaknesses of Darwin’s theory.

The lesson plan asks students to examine various debates over
parts of evolutionary theory that are discussed in science
journals, such as whether microevolutionary processes are
sufficient to explain macroevolution. The lesson plan was created
to implement a benchmark in the state science standards that
requires students to be able to "Describe how scientists continue
to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary
theory."

The lesson plan does not discuss religion or alternative
scientific theories such as intelligent design. Created with
input from a science advisory committee that included teachers,
science educators, and scientists from across Ohio, the lesson
plan was defended by a number of scientists in public testimony
before the board on Tuesday.

“Ohio’s science standards and this lesson will stand as a beacon
to other states as they review their own approach to how
evolution is presented in the classroom,” said Chapman. “This is
a common-sense approach that avoids the extremes and focuses on
teaching students about the scientific debates over evolution.”

To speak with a spokesperson for Discovery Institute contact Rob
Crowther at (206) 292-0401 x107 or by e-mail at
rob@discovery.org.

###

About Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture is the
nation’s leading think tank and research center examining
scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution. Discovery Institute
is a non-profit, non-partisan, public-policy, think tank which
promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative
government, the free market and individual liberty. Current
projects include: technology, the economy, regional
transportation, and the bi-national region of "Cascadia."
http://www.discovery.org/."

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Yesterday was (according to my Get Fuzzy "Scratch-a-day" calendar) International Women's Day and I believe March is Women's History Month. Now, I'm all for women. I do have a wife. But, when it comes to things like this, I cannot help but be suspicious after so many positive things have been co-opted for immoral agendas. Take Women's History Month. When I was in high school, instead of finding a speaker for our assembly that could positively relate to all students, the organizers chose Margarethe Cammermeyer, a lesbian who was kicked out of the Coast Guard, if my memory serves me correctly. I boycotted the assembly, so I do not know what she said. But the point is, they chose a woman who represented a lifestyle that is not compatible with Christianity, who "overcame" the challenges of living as a lesbian in the Coast Guard, when it could have been so much more helpful to find a local woman who was actually doing something to help society.
Hey, here's an idea: how about choosing for a speaker a woman who made a bad decision and got pregnant when she was 17, was pressured by her parents and boyfriend to abort the baby, but with the help of a Crisis Pregnancy Center was able to provide for her child. She then became a Christian, began volunteering to help other women in her position, and now is married to a wonderful man with whom she has three more children. Now that would be the story of a woman who overcame some obstacles and contributes positively to society. Try to get her to speak at a public school. Good luck.
I am generally disposed against Women's History Month and International Women's Day. Why? Because I am a misogynist? Believe it or not, no. It would be great if we could talk about the great women of history (like Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony, who were both pro-life, for example). But it so often degenerates into the kinds of things Mike Adams talks about. Or you get things aligned with Women's History Month like this sick and wrong holiday celebrating murderers that Joel Mowbray writes about.
Without Women's History Month (voice-over: "sponsored, in part, by Planned Parenthood and NOW"), there would be a lot more women who might have the chance to make history.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Now I'm sure the new bishop of New Hampshire doesn't have an agenda.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

I wondered how long it would be until restaurants gave picky customers the finger.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

An update here on the Girl Scouts thing of a couple weeks ago. I do not give a Thin Mint whether the program has anything to say about abortion or homosexuality. It is certainly clear what Planned Parenthood has to say about it. (Just check out their site sometime.) If you give them an inch, they will take a whole lot more. If young girls start thinking that Planned Parenthood does one or two things well, who is she going to turn to when she gets in a bad situation and becomes pregnant? Imagine if a Crisis Pregnancy Center wanted to sponsor a program aligned with the Girl Scouts. Planned Parenthood would be crying foul until their faces were blue. And give me a break, Planned Parenthood feels "bullied" by a small pro-life group? Quit whining.

On another topic, I knew there had to be someone out there willing to put into words what the rest of the critics were only thinking! Eamonn McCann, of the Belfast Telegraph, couldn't restrain his hatred of Christians, and so it spilled over onto his column. There must be a lot more churches in Ireland where Christians are killing Jews, because if the New Testament is so hateful, how can we keep from killing a Jew every time we see one? Maybe Mr. McCann can give me a single example in Ireland where this has happened, with a member of a mainline church responsible. (To my knowledge, neither the popes, nor the councils, nor Martin Luther actually carried out any pogroms themselves upon the Jews; though individuals may have attempted to use Christianity for their own twisted interpretation.) People who want to hate will hate regardless of what the Bible says. I challenge Mr. McCann to find a single anti-Semite who uses Scripture as justification who also was not an anti-Semite prior to his reading of Scripture. Just like Mr. McCann has his own agenda prior to his reading of Scripture, so also the purveyors of anti-Jewish hatred. Anyone can find just about anything they want in the Bible if they try hard enough and are twisted enough.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

For a good commentary on the moral backwardness of film critics today, read Brent Bozell's column here. They all loved Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, and The Passion is hateful and terrible.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

To illustrate how deeply entrenched evolutionary dogma has become in the schools and school boards across the country, take this recent example from Ohio. You make up your own mind. First, read this "model lesson" proposed to the State Board of Education for a 10th grade study of critiques of evolutionary theory. When, in the history of scientific exploration, have scientists ever discouraged critical inquiry? It seems to be only when one wants to question the sacred cow of evolution is such critical inquiry prohibited. In truth, "scientists" who oppose this move by the Ohio State Board of Education have ceased to be scientists in the sense that word should denote. You want to question the foundation of evolutionary theory? You want to question any of the numerous assumptions that go into the whole cloth that is evolutionary theory? You must be an evil creationist in disguise. These critics are beginning to sound too much like Planned Parenthood in their absolute blindness to their own ideological agendas. There is nothing but hysterical screeching when one tries to discuss an issue with such people. And, needless to say, it is very hard to hold a civilized discussion when one party is screeching like a howler monkey.
The Cincinnati Enquirer, however, seems to understand the issue much more clearly. Read their editorial here.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

One last thing for today: Want some evidence that homosexual "marriage" will harm our society by disintegrating marriage further than it already has been? Read Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott's article here.
Isn't it interesting that homosexuals think that because heterosexual marriage has been bloodied by no-fault divorce, extramarital affairs and cohabitation prior to marriage, it makes sense to allow them to marry? So, their argument is, because marriage is so bad already, why don't we just completely demolish the entire institution? Now does that make any sense at all? To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, there is no use in going on after one has got part of a mathematical equation wrong; the only solution is to go back to where one got off the track, and begin again. In other words, we should not simply allow marriage to go the way of the buffalo, but we need to fix what is wrong with it already. We need to make divorce harder to get, we need to recover the sense of moral outrage at all forms of sin that erode marriage and we need, as Christians, to offer what people really need: a place to repent and be given the forgiveness that only Jesus offers.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

If you want to do something to stop the activist judges in this country, sign The Federalist's petition here, called "The Enumerated Powers Amendment."

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

I knew it couldn't be too long in coming. Multnomah County in Oregon (home of my alma mater) has decided to grant licenses for homosexual "marriages." Portland has the reputation of being the "lesbian capital of the world" (aligned with San Francisco), and the Northwest is not exactly a conservative area of the United States anyway. Here, here and here are three articles on the decision. Surprisingly, The Oregonian's editorial page came out against the decision (though not because they are against homosexual "marriage" but because it doesn't give the people a chance to decide).
There are a number of things that are clear as a result of the various situations across the country. One of those things is that the state officials who are doing this are either acting without consulting the people (as in Oregon) or they are acting in direct contradiction to state law (as in San Francisco). This shows that they have no regard for the laws of the state, and that they are only interested in creating anarchy (that is what happens when laws are not obeyed). If I think something is contrary to what I want to do, I do not have the right to simply disobey the law without expecting consequences. If I want to challenge the law, I have that right. I abhor the right to abortion in this country, but that does not give me the right to kill abortion doctors or carry out my own vigilante justice. It would obviously be more difficult for me to work for the outlawing of legalized murder from within a jail cell. Another thing that is clear is that when the consequences are not forthcoming, as in Portland, San Francisco and New York (although at least New Paltz, NY is taking action), this can only lead to anarchy, and it will be nearly impossible to turn back time on this issue. The war may not be over, but it may be lost at this point. How will California be able to keep those couples from asking for their "rights" when the mayor of San Francisco has validated their requests? They're just asking for "gay, bi- and transgendered" riots.
Unless those marriages are declared universally invalid and illegal in the very near future, you might as well wave hello to Mr. and Mr. Whoever, or Mrs. and Mrs. Whatstheirname next door.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

It appears that the controversy will not go away, and, to my mind, the misunderstandings are simply being perpetuated, rather than answered. (That's why they should all read this blog!) Here is a pretty good article on the movie by Charlotte Allen, but I think she misses the point in some cases. I've heard this more than once, but she asks the question about why Jesus carries the whole cross, when most scholars agree that people who were crucified carried only the crossbeam. The answer seems more than clear to me: Mel Gibson, being a "traditionalist" Catholic, has chosen to depict Jesus' Way of Sorrow to the cross in the form of the Stations of the Cross of traditional Catholic art and piety. It is clear that Gibson knows the scholarly consensus: he has the other two thieves carry only the crossbeam. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who noticed that.
Second, about where the nails went it: it is is not at all settled that the nails had to be in the wrists. I do not have a source on hand, but I have heard that it is possible that some were crucified by having nails in their palms. (Was it that a skeleton was found? If anyone knows, please e-mail me or write a comment.) Plus, their hands were tied as well to keep them up there. These are indeed "niggling" details, as Allen puts it, and Gibson is more concerned, I believe, with making theological and artistic points than with absolute, scholarly accuracy. This also explains the Latin, I would think, since Gibson is obviously concerned with Catholic tradition, not necessarily historical, linguistic accuracy. If Gibson wanted to do a word-for-word movie, he might just as well have had the characters all use the Greek Bible, which is its original written language.
These things are probably only concerns for the scholars who deal in those areas, but they have forgotten Gibson's primary purpose: to make his theological and artistic vision of Christ's passion, not to heed "what every scholar knows" and obey the technicalities of academicians. For the most part, it is indeed accurate to the Bible, and what it includes that is not in the Bible is certainly not anti-Biblical, nor does it cloud the good news of Christ's death and resurrection.
There's got to be something more newsworthy out there than to simply rehash every single inconsistency that the "scholars" think they have found. Much of it is speculation anyway, and if Mel Gibson wants to make a movie based on the Biblical text along with his speculation about how it might have played out, for pity's sake, why can't he?

William Safire's column doesn't even deserve comment, but I will disgrace myself and disobey the Biblical exhortation not to answer a fool according to his folly (or maybe I'm obeying the next verse that instructs to answer a fool according to his folly!)
The only thing I want to comment on is the oft-repeated canard that both Gibson and the Gospel of Matthew (a "Jewish" Gospel if there is one!) are "rabidly" anti-Semitic because of the phrase spoken by the crowd, "Let His blood be on us and on our children!" Now, I don't expect William Safire to be theologically sophisticated, but there are two ways to understand this cry. In its context, it is clearly a cry of hatred and condemnation by a primarily Jewish crowd (though it is also clear that not every Jew in Palestine was at Jesus' trial). This means that they have called the blood-guilt of Jesus upon themselves. Yes, that is bad, but if Safire knew the rest of the Gospel of Matthew and the Bible, he would know that the blood-guilt of Jesus rests upon the entire human race, including Safire himself. I doubt this statement will inspire anti-Safirism across the country. But there is another way to take the declaration of the crowd, and it is not Law, but Gospel. As we, guilty before God of our sin, repeat the words of that line from the Gospel of Matthew, we realize that we are no longer guilty of His blood, because it is His blood that cleanses us. So to ask for His blood to be on us and on our children is a fervent prayer that God in His mercy will do that very thing. When we are washed in the precious Blood of Christ, we are not guilty, but declared innocent. But, I guess Mr. Safire didn't want to ask a theologian.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

One more thing to blame Mel Gibson for. (But I don't remember any Chevys in The Passion.) This sounds like it is straight out of a Flannery O'Connor story.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Ann Coulter just keeps chewing them up and spitting them out. Surely the New York Times could put up a little bit more of a challenge!

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

What's up with the ugly baby in The Passion? Mark Moring answers that question with an answer from Mel Gibson himself. Read that answer here.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com

Well, I've been gone for a while, but it's time to start bludgeoning the darkness again!

I saw The Passion of the Christ last night and it is everything that I expected and more. I do not, as a rule, let tears run down my cheeks in movies, but I could not stop them during this one. It is brutal, violent and sickening...and it is, as a representation of the Gospel of Christ, salvific, faith-strengthening, and destructive of self-delusions.
One of the previews prior to the movie was for The Alamo; I await the reviews that will warn of anti-Mexican violence as a result of that film (I dare to predict that you will read at least one review with such warnings).

I had two primary thoughts during The Passion. The first was, "This is my Lord?" It is offensive to our oh-so-pious American Christian minds that our God should be so ignominously put to death. (Perhaps our Protestant pieties are what prevent us from accepting the fact that the violence was at least as severe as depicted, and perhaps more so.) But the thought that immediately followed the previous one was the words of our Lord in John 6:67, after many were offended at His teaching about eating His flesh and drinking His blood: "Do you want to go away as well?" And my answer, because of the faith that God has given me, could be none other than Peter's: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (Jn. 6:68).
Yes, that is a depiction of my Lord on the screen, as He crushes the head of the serpent, Satan; as He willingly gives His life for the world; as He gives us His Body and Blood in the Sacrament; as He allows Himself to be scourged and whipped and beaten, because it is in those stripes that we are healed; as He is nailed to the cross and dies for our forgiveness.
In a similar way to how the Lord of the Rings movies formed how I see the characters when I read the books, this movie will forever form how I picture the suffering and death of Christ (even if certain incidents in the film were results of artistic license). How fitting during this time of Lent, as we focus on the Passion of the Christ--not as an abstract, historical event, but as an historical event that is made real to us and for us in our Baptism, and when Christ gives us His very Body and Blood at the altar every week. This film may offend our pious sensibilities (and it probably should), but it is pure Gospel through and through. There is no question that Jesus knows from the very beginning what He will choose to do, and that He does it willingly. In the film, Mary is our example of what faith in Christ looks like. She suffers when she must view her Son's suffering, but she knows that it is necessary for her salvation and for the salvation of the world. Protestants could do well to recover some sense of reverence of Mary as a great saint of the Christian faith, to whom we might look for example.

Those are my initial thoughts, but I plan to see it again.

I was also struck by the irony that comes across in some of the (un-)critical reviews of the film. The people who argue that so many of the things that are in the Bible are historically inaccurate or false are the same exact people who now argue that Mel Gibson included things that weren't in the Bible. Oh, now they're concerned about accuracy! There is a wide gap between saying that things that are in the Bible are false and saying that movie creators cannot take artistic (or in this case, theological) license with things that are not in the Bible. But then, distinctions have always been hard for these people to make.

Trew
trewblog@yahoo.com